Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday November 02, 2012 @05:22PM
from the seeing-what-sticks dept.

According to a (paywalled) report in the Wall Street Journal, Microsoft is experimenting with its own smartphone design. "Officials at some of Microsoft's parts suppliers, who declined to be named, said the Redmond, Wash.-based company is testing a smartphone design but isn't sure if a product will go into mass production." The article continues:
"If Microsoft pushes ahead with its mobile phone, it would underscore how far Microsoft has moved away from its long-standing practice of making software and leaving decisions about design, features and marketing of the computing hardware to partners such as Hewlett-Packard or Samsung Electronics. ... As it does so, Microsoft pulls from a modified playbook of Apple—whose hardware-plus-software approach Microsoft officials long have scorned. ... Smartphones running Microsoft's two-year-old Windows Phone operating software for cellphones haven't sold well, and Microsoft may want to leave itself an option to test whether its own phone would spur sales."

Here is the "New MSFT Strategy" under Steve Ballmer..."What does Apple do? Well we'll do that too, only it'll be half assed, half baked, and poorly thought out...yeah that'll work"...Look at how pathetic the apps on Win 8 and WinRT are, think Jobs would have allowed that shit? Hell think Gates would have allowed that shit?

Ballmer is a disaster, MSFT is a trainwreck, they are throwing crap at a wal

I see what you did there. You're a 10 digit Slashdot ID sent back from the future by the Society of Meme Preservation as part of their MMC Centennial retrospective.

Microsoft was good at something once upon a time. It was akin to charging a man a fee to have sex with your own wife, but let's not go there. It was a cool place to work (if you had a high tolerance for stomach meds) because one morning you would wake up and the tooth fairy would have replaced your non-vested shares with a vintage Jaguar and w

Whatever you think of Steve Ballmer how he for the record got for a bargain the most expensive advertising campaign in history for next to nothing, and a patent cartel with Nokia, and it seems things are unlikely to change in the future.

There was actually a pretty good analysis on Elop, and the game he's in. His chances are basically that Nokia will either die and microsoft get smartphone division out of the wreck and he gets to be the boss of that, or Nokia manages to survive and he becomes unemployable as a CEO that destroyed a fortune500 company in a record time with a lot of personal mistakes.

I wonder if there is anything Nokia could have done? I see his point with Android and since Windows Phone is a new OS with MS providing a huge developer base and tools not to mention hope that it might be compatible with METRO be a boon.

Investors hate people who say it is a hot market I want in!!! That makes them yawn as consumers prefer other players who are already in psychologically. Symbian didn't have the developer support or ecosystem either or the mass market

Windows phone 7 won't be upgraded (as you said - Nokia for a long time claimed to believe it would be)

Microsoft is publicising their own phones just before Nokia's big launch

The camera one is really instructive. Nokia's big new feature as 40MP ultra-big, ultra-high resolution sensors with digital stabilisation. They create a special "pure-view" brand just for these. Instead they will be delivering 8MP sensors with standard optical stabilization and are desperate (this is the sensor where they cheated on the publicity video). Nokia has been forced to brand these "pure-view" also so they could get that feature check on their Windows phones.

Think about the loss that causes when imaging was the last feature Nokia stood out on:

Pure View - originally associated with 40MP custom sensors is now associated with commodity 8MP sensors

they have no single feature on their phones which is outstanding; almost everything is worse than an iPhone 5 and much worse than a new Samsung.

He decided he didn't want to be part of an expanding market if he had to share it (and, granted, Android isn't doing that great for people not in the front rank). So now he's in a dying market. And he has to share it.

If you look at the reviews of the Lumia 920 the hardware is top notch. What is a problem is that no one (well to reasonable assumption) wants Windows Phone.

A lot of people do want Android though. And Nokia has a chance of competing with Samsung which makes excellent but (compared to Nokia) rather pricey hardware.

If you look at phones like a Nokia Express Music series they are pretty damn good. And very cheap. If they'd launched them with Android instead of Symbian I think they'd sell well, especially in poorer countries. And an Android Lumias would be bound to sell better than an WP ones.

Also WP doesn't help Nokia's real problem which is its long development cycles. That's something Sony Ericsson suffered from too. Making phones in unionised Nordic countries is always going to be slower than doing it in Asia. Nokia were well aware of this

"Chinese OEMs are cranking out a device much faster than,the time that it takes us to polish a PowerPoint presentation"

If I were in charge of Nokia here's what I'd do with smartphones.

I'd keep the industrial design in house. I'd should outsource the hardware design and manufacturing to Taiwanese ODMs and switch to Android (if Microsoft want WP support they'd need to pay and I'd do as HTC and Samsung do and still sell mostly Android phones). So you'd have a basic case design done in Europe shared across a series but rapidly redesign the internals - baseband chip up - to keep the performance current. In terms of baseband I'd buy from anyone who would sell chips that could run Android - i.e. Qualcomm, Samsung, TI, ST Ericsson. Nokia would sell its baseband business and let it operate in competition with these suppliers, but Nokia would only buy from it if its designs were competitive.

The bundled apps - Nokia's maps for example - could be either done in house or outsourced.

The idea is that the things that make a Nokia a Nokia - industrial design and bundled apps - would be decoupled from the hardware design which would then happen more quickly.

Also the underlying base band chip would change from phone to phone. So if Qualcomm had the best chip in one generation, they'd get the order. If Samsung had the best chip in the next one they'd get it.

Sony Ericsson originally bought all its baseband chips from Ericsson Mobile Platforms. They got further and further behind Qualcomm in terms of performance, particularly after Qualcomm launched the Snapdragon. Eventually Sony bought out the phone business and started to buy Qualcomm chips. The Ericsson Mobile Platforms was 'cast out of the Ericsson group' (think Adam and Eve being expelled from the garden of Eden) and ended up being part of ST Ericsson.

Basically if you want to get people in Nordic countries to work hard they need to know that they are competing on the open market and their company will be shut down if it is unprofitable. Back when Sony Ericsson only bought from EMP that was not the case.

He's right and the truth of the matter is with the exception of Acer who has basically signed its own death warrant by not consigning to windows will be suddenly left in the cold. Push vendors to create competitive devices by brandishing your own is a good strategy.

Sorry guys, nobody cares what OS is on a phone. Only Geeks do and normal people will by Nokia because its a good brand and if half the devices out there run the same system (like what surface+windows8 is doing) users will just buy it without a ca

People do care. Average users as they want something that looks cool that their friends use and has all the cool apps they are familiar with.

I spoke to a phone salesmen and he told me Nokia has the highest returns in his store. The Nokia luima actually and didn't recommend it!

That says a lot right there.

It is the classic example of MBAs trying to get ahead by staying behind the competition with excessive cost cutting. Not trying to make a better phone to gain more marketshare which is what Apple and Samsung

I spoke to a salesperson today aswell, see I wanted a tablet for my wife so she could plug it in to her (i think olympus) camera and then upload her photos to DropBox. The guy told me come back in a few weeks when the Windows tablets are in. He also said that it was something the iPad isn't capable of, which really I'd consider is a pretty damn remedial task.

If you go talk to the Salesman in a Microsoft store in the office where you work you will hear some pretty weird shit. The iPad can obviously do that using the camera connection kit [apple.com] and if you bought a Nexus tablet you could just do it with a converter cable. I'd recommend going ahead with that now whilst you can still claim you bought it before the Surface was available. Later on you might get into trouble with your team leader for not being sufficiently loyal.

A few years ago, yes. But I think things have changed with advent of apps.

So many people are now used to running a variety of apps, that those who buy smartphones opt for iOS or Android. (Users might not know what an OS is, but they will ask the salesman "Does it run apps?")
Lack of apps -> Lack of interest in the high end user base -> Lack of sales

Sure, many low end users still don't care about apps. "Why should I pay for a smartphone when all I want is a cheap and simple phone?" This is why WP7 has not yet gained traction.

Consequently, if WP claws it's way to populatity, it must be due to some clever business strategy.

Part of such a clever business strategy might be to ensure a high minimum quality/performance of the devices, achieved by actively taking control of the building process.
Another part might be to "train" the existing user base into using and liking Metro. When a phone works seamlessly with the computer and "it just works", then that phone will be more attractive, thus making it easier for users to migrate to WP (mainly Windows users who are not yet avid app users).

In other words, Microsoft is beginning to compete toe to toe against Apple, using strategies similar to Apple's. And with enough strong business practices, MS might actually succeed. But it won't be quick.
What worries me is that if MS succeeds, then Android might fall behind. That would be sad.

However it plays out, I don't see WP becoming one of the big OS's in a hurry. It's more of a medium term plan. The catch up will take a few years.

That's terrible for Nokia. The few chances for its survival, IMO, now are gone:-S

True. But it's a logical move for Microsoft. The world has changed. The paradigm of selling an operating system at high profit margins is failing against the paradigm of giving the operating system away in order to sell devices. Microsoft can't compete with that without changing the way they do business.

The problem here is that it is now going to do battle against companies who have years of experience as *hardware* manufacturers. Yes, Microsoft has some experience, but on the level of Apple or Samsung? And just how far can Microsoft intrude into the world of manufacturing before it starts stepping on the toes of OEMs? If Microsoft is just planning a few flagship devices to demonstrate Windows on smartdevices, I can understand it, though I have a hard time seeing how they can hope to make money with it, but if Microsoft is deciding, after literally decades of essentially being a software company, that now it is going to become a manufacturer, then it's entering territory it has little direct experience with, and is going to be going head to head against very big players like Apple.

I'm not saying it might not work. Who knows? Maybe in five years, it will be a major rival against Apple and the Android ecosystem. But even success in this new strategy carries risks of damaging core business units.

Really? Just like Surface doomed the prospects of Asus, Samsung, and the few other manufacturers who have announced Windows RT tablets?

You armchair business analysts seem to assume that there is no OEM differentiation in the Windows world. I can't see why. Lumia 920 is a very impressive device, and it's selling as of today, while the MS phone is only an industrial rumor.

Agreed. Nokia == BlackBerry.That's quite a stretch... BlackBerry == early smartphone maker who has since refused to innovate and even refused for many years to use touchscreens. Nokia == early maker of "dumb phones" who, while being early to the smart phone game, never really did well in it, resting on their success in the dumb phone market. They have now woken up and started to pursue smart phones in a serious manner.

Device manufacturer means NOTHING in the mobile marketplace - operating system does!Samsung is doing fantastic using Android, while HTC is very rapidly losing market share, and Motorola is a Has-Been. Device manufacturer means NOTHING? Please... I think HTCs shareholders would have some rather strong words for you.

Windows mobile is terrible and will continue to be terrible, so I'm not sure that it was much of a lifeline to begin with.Have you actually used Windows Phone? (I mean 7, 7.5 or 8, not the old 6.5 or before). It's the only one of the major contendors that doesn't look like a smartphone swallowed Windows 95 and then puked icons all over itself. It's incredibly stable, and has a lot of built-ins that make a lot of the most common smart-phone tasks very simple and fast.

The market wants iOS and Android. Nobody else matters. Microsoft just has a lot of money so they pretend that people care about them as a mobile OS provider. They would make more money by manufacturing Android phones.A lot of people I talk to want an alternative to the somewhat stale iOS and craptastic Android. I think Microsoft actually does have a chance, and with the amount they're investing in Windows Phone I think it's a pretty good chance at that. Oh yeah, and they already make a lot of money off Android phones... Love 'em or hate 'em, patents are a beautiful thing if you're on the right side of them.

Microsoft has made some serious mistakes in mobile, but they're hardly out of the game.

Note: In the interest of full disclosure, I currently work at Microsoft, though nowhere near the Phone or OS divisions. I do hope to see Microsoft succeed in the phone world, partly because I own stock in both Microsoft and Nokia, but my coworkers would tell you I have no problem bashing decisions I disagree with at the company.

I think the logo and the hardware matter, not the OS. If iPhone 5 started shipping tomorrow with Android 4.2 or WP8, most users would be either oblivious or ecstatic at the amazing innovations Apple has introduced.

I am sure MS is capable of creating a smartphone design that "works well" for what that's worth, but it's pretty evident that this category is led by devices that are functional and aesthetically pleasing. I don't think MS is painted in a corner to have to make a Microsoft iPhone (Apple will probably try to sue them in any case) but in playing "offense" it would be great for Microsoft to focus on elevating or evolving the smartphone category and not try to be a "me too" device.

Apple has already stated in court that Win8's design does substantially differ from Apple's. Apple has a problem with Android. They've been unequivocal about MeeGo, Tizen, Win8, BBOS9, BB10... not being a violation of their patents.

Apple has a problem with Android because Android is a major competitor. It has no problem with Microsoft because it does not foresee any point in the near future when Microsoft will be a major competitor.

Getting hauled into court by Apple is a sign that you're on to something. Not getting hauled into court by Apple is a sign that you're probably going to fail.

They were the bit player in those days. Blackberry was the big guy on the block. What reason would there have been in the last two years to sue Blackberry? It's market share has collapsed quite nicely without needing to set Apple's legal hounds on it.

The lawsuits started in 2009. When Android came out and Jobs started laying the groundwork to sue, RIM was about 45% of the smartphone market. By December 2009, RIM was still 42% and Android was still under 6%.

Apple knew with utter certitude that they would absolutely murder RIM in the marketplace, because RIM's interface was pure shit, and Apple's was (is) pure gold. As in, that's what they get by selling it. I have honestly never used iOS, because almost nobody I know has an iDevice, and also, I don't care. I have barely used new versions of Android, either, but I have used them in the emulator, because Google gives the images for free.

I think that's a bit rear view mirror. RIM had huge advantages in enterprise integration that Apple still doesn't quite match. I don't think Apple had anyway of knowing that RIM would get so distracted and lose years getting their new kernel to work.

The GUI wasn't a huge problem for RIM in 2007 though it certainly was an advantage for Apple.

I think that Apple knew that the majority care more about shiny than workgroup integration. There's nothing rear view mirror about it. RIM took the approach of selling to business. Apple took the approach of making something the masses of asses would like to hold up in the sky to take pictures of themselves. Apple made the right decision, and RIM is well on its way to being a short footnote.

I am sure MS is capable of creating a smartphone design that "works well" for what that's worth

Why? What event from history would give you that idea?

I don't think MS is painted in a corner to have to make a Microsoft iPhone (Apple will probably try to sue them in any case) but in playing "offense" it would be great for Microsoft to focus on elevating or evolving the smartphone category and not try to be a "me too" device.

The problem is, even Apple only made a nicer version of concepts that were around before.

Can they compete with a smartphone design? Sure but I wouldn't bet money on it.

The reasons Microsoft built Surface were:
1. MS felt the OEM Win8 tablets not upto the mark with iPad.
2. There is no dedicated OEM working on Win8 tablet.
3. MS thinks there isn't OEM with market perception comparable to Apple in tablet space.

All these issues aren't present in WP8 space, as Nokia has history of marking amazing phones, it is dedicated to WP8 and market perception of Nokia isn't bad in phone space. So it doesn't make sense for Microsoft to make their own phone.

The reasons Microsoft built Surface were:1. MS felt the OEM Win8 tablets not upto the mark with iPad.2. There is no dedicated OEM working on Win8 tablet.3. MS thinks there isn't OEM with market perception comparable to Apple in tablet space.

...So Microsofts failure in the tablet space was not anything to do with the inappropriate software, that limited the hardware, in both its input method, CPU, battery life etc etc.

Microsoft are in the Mobile space to soak up all that early adopter money.

Nokia has already bled dry, Microsoft have already flirting up to HTC, while Elop lives in denial.

I really doubt that Elop lives in denial. What would you expect him to say, whether he as an MS partisan or not?

My personal expectation is that he knew this was in the offing before he signed the deal with MS, and probably before he was hired by Noika. I know, however, that I have no faintest hope of proving this.

I really doubt that Elop lives in denial. What would you expect him to say

I would expect him to say nothing, he didn't. He should be having a team working secretly somewhere to be ready to respond to a Microsoft announcement of a launch Phone with "People loved out Lumia range range, but wanted Android on it. This is out new range of Fuck-You-Ballmer Phones"

I don't really understand Elop thing why is nobody sacking him; having him arrested? Why is nobody at Nokia going "this is not a burning platform we are hurting for real"? I don't really care if he is inept; stubborn; bribed;

Microsoft have already flirting up to HTC, while Elop lives in denial.
Interesting, maybe that's their strategy, "ally" themselves with the smaller players one by one and suck them dry, then move up the chain. Not that I'd miss HTC currently, my older phone was great, but the one I just replaced with a Samsung was unalloyed crap!

"market perception of Nokia isn't bad in phone space" I just bought a new phone last week and the shops were really down on Nokia and windows phones, lots of faulties apparently. It was all iPhone this, Samsung that....

Android is a race to the bottom just as PC sales were. If you're Samsung or Moto, it's great to be in android. They have the higher margin devices. Too bad most devices are crap. The same can be said for the PC. Google has used microsoft's own battle plan against them. Microsoft sees this and uses the Apple battle plan because somehow they always survive. In 15 years, will we see google giving microsoft a loan or investment so there is still competition?

Nokia has a microsoft fanboy working for them. There is nothing left for them. They could have owned the dumbphone market and worked on something decent or acquired RIM and tried to do something with it. They could have tried to get webos from HP or partnered with them. There are many things they could have done, but they chose to be the launchpad for microsoft as a hardware company. (ignoring the xbox and input device lines) Best case, Nokia is bought by Microsoft. I don't even see that future.

By and large I agree with you, though there are some pretty nice Android devices out there if you're willing to spend the money. The fact is that the market seems to be shaping up to be a two horse race with the likes of Blackberry fading quickly, or at least doomed to niche positions. Can Microsoft make it a three horse race? Who knows, but history suggests that Microsoft's forays into this market have been pretty dismal failures. In fact, outside of the Xbox division, Microsoft's attempts to break out of

There is no part of that that is true. Current Windows Phones won't run WP8 [seriously single processor], Iphones had a disappointing launch is reflected marketshare is down from 23.1% to 14.9% in a couple of quarters. RIM is yet to come out with a compelling product...and Elop killed Symbian

Android had waterproof phones; projectors; massive phones; value phones; keyboard phones; cutting edge phones...and a marketshare of 75%...they are buying them because they are great innovative hardware and more importantly software. They are building market share not a desperate dying monopolist trying to gain market share through its usual bully tactics[Microsoft] or maintain it through Litigation.

There is only room for one or two vendors to fully PROFIT (that's the word you don't seem to get) from Android. The rest? A race for very thin margins. Witness HTC.

...but that is clearly not true ZTE; Hweui is making massive market share gains. Asus is doing well with Android tablets, LG is profiting again from dumping Windows Phone, Sony after dumping Ericsson with its Android phone is profitable...Even HTC is profitable its just been less competitive than other Android phone manufactures. I believe Google are doing quite well too.You are aware than HTC [and ironically Samsung] make windows phones too:)

Android is a race to the bottom just as PC sales were. If you're Samsung or Moto, it's great to be in android. They have the higher margin devices. Too bad most devices are crap.

"Crap" is relative. While I've complained a lot about the old Froyo-based phone I eventually ditched, you only have to look at what passes for "apps" on a non-smartphone to see what a step up even a crap Android phone is over that.

Remember dumb phone calendars? Remember having to sync your phone calendar with your computer, and having to buy terrible software just to do that? Remember how bad contacts managers were on dumb phones? Remember how, for a lot of phones, you just couldn't sync anything at all - i

"Crap" is relative. While I've complained a lot about the old Froyo-based phone I eventually ditched, you only have to look at what passes for "apps" on a non-smartphone to see what a step up even a crap Android phone is over that.

The game has changed a bit. Pick a cheaper Lumia or an Asha touch phone (to talk about ostensible non-smartphones). Most cheap Android phones are crap compared to that.

Microsoft sees this and uses the Apple battle plan because somehow they always survive.

I might be wrong, but I somehow recall MS buying $150 million worth of Apple stock in '97 to help keep the company afloat. Am I wrong on this? I recall it very clearly, so I'm pretty sure there was a significant MS investment in Apple at that time. I think it was tied to putting MS Office on the Macintosh. I thought at the time that MS needed Apple as a competitor due to all the anti-trust investigations?
And did IBM and/or Motorola throw some money into Apple in the '90's related to the Power PC project?

This makes a shit load of sense. A great OS looking for hardware matched with a great hardware manufacturer looking for a popular OS. WebOS wasn't *that* popular but the firesale gave it a lot of publicity and everyone seems to love it. Too bad.

But game systems live[d] and die[d] on content, whereas smart phones have core functionality like phone, internet, music device and camera

Game consoles already have music and video streaming, and at least the Wii and PS3 have web access. So why can't they have core functionality like video calls (using PS Eye, Xbox Live Vision, or Kinect), and an app ecosystem? Is it that companies like Nintendo and Sony fear competition from developers working from home who haven't paid some sort of "dues" to the video gaming establishment?

There can be no better proof that MS is irrelevant and dying. If they had any balls, they'd reinvent the PC, create something new that people might want, but instead they opt for imitating their competitors, a continuing spiral into failure.

MS is far from irrelevent and dying... they still dominate the business world and Apple's own cloud utilizes Microsoft's Azure... Obviously you have no experience in corporate IT and are simply using consumer devices to from wihch to draw your incorrect conclusion.

MS is far from irrelevent and dying... they still dominate the business world and Apple's own cloud utilizes Microsoft's Azure... Obviously you have no experience in corporate IT and are simply using consumer devices to from wihch to draw your incorrect conclusion.

Here is the thing, Apple & Google dominate the Mobile and Internet [as well as a whole host of other giants like Facebook and Amazon]. Microsoft is a bit Player in markets where it should have been a leader. Its not and its efforts to Bully its way into these markets have failed. Look at the topic "Microsoft reportedly working on its own smartphone"...Its not 2007 its nearly 2013 that is 5 years too late.

My guess is people will stop buying office first. Microsoft has already started giving it away to th

Let me know when I can read and write Word documents that are flawless from every single user on the planet!

Let me know when I can do that even on Windows. Microsoft Word has been known to change the formatting of documents based on the installed fonts (or lack thereof) or based on the default paper size of the default printer connected to a given machine. If you want documents to remain flawless across machines, use PDF.

Before the first unit ships, it will damage the market for Windows Phone handsets due to the anticipation. It's an old move in the tech business to destroy a market with vaporware: usually, though, companies do it to destroy markets where they're not getting an income.

Clunky steampunk smart phone? I'm imagining an 80's size/shape cell phone that's got 3 glass touch screens to match the 3 angles of the interior of those old things, and a sling to carry it like a satchel. I want one now, big metal dialing buttons on the back.

Whatever you may think of Apple, the fact is that Microsoft's notion of innovation now seems to be "Do what Apple does." At some point, if Microsoft continues down this path, it's going to weaken its OEM network, which is, at the end of the day, what made Microsoft the company it is today. Without all those manufacturers throwing MS's OEM products on new units, I'd say Microsoft's attempt to become Apple better work really damned well.

Microsoft's notion of innovation now seems to be "Do what Apple does."

Its a shame that they are not following Apple in direction not strategy. Be early [look to be first] with great devices, at reasonable prices...essentially create the market. They are just copying the crap only Apple could get away with...because the created the market. They should be aiming for for where Apple [should] want to be. I would have have done a xbox360 *without* gaming functionality, and sold it for manufactures to put in their TV's...the self same ones they are f***king over now. Lets watch the

Well, when Apple was sinking, they brought back Steve Jobs, the original founder, as CEO again. So . . . has anyone seen Bill Gates lately . . . ? Is he tanned, rested and bucking for another championship fight . . . ?

Whatever you may think of Apple, the fact is that Microsoft's notion of innovation now seems to be "Do what Apple does."

That's not really true at any meaningful level. Sure, they followed Apple into the phone/tablet market, but they're not at all a copy-cat. Apple came up with a field of icons. Android copied that, and added widgets and a status bar. Apple copied those back. Microsoft came along and made something completely unique. Not necessarily better -- I haven't used it -- but definitely unique.

Microsoft also makes a video game console with a unique motion sensor, instead of copying Nintendo the way Sony did. Note that the Kinect isn't necessarily better than the Wiimote, but it's certainly different.

And Microsoft innovated with Bing, adding lots of features that Google has since mimicked: helicopter view in maps, infinite scrolling image search, preview panes on the side, flight searches, etc. Bing isn't better than Google, not by a long shot, but it's certainly not some me-too! copy.

Really, Microsoft comes up with some innovative stuff. I'm not sure why they're floundering. Maybe it's just bad marketing? But it's certainly not for lack of talented people.

It's because copying your competitors and adding a few minor features isn't really innovation. Even the Xbox is still years from paying off the huge amount of money thrown at it.

But on MSNBC this morning the new iPad Fire (or is it iPad Nexus 7?) was called "Apple's latest innovation," so I think you must be wrong. Hell, it seems copying your competitors and then removing major features counts as innovation.

Microsoft comes up with some innovative stuff. I'm not sure why they're floundering.

It's because time to market is more important than raw innovation. Google had a great search engine years before Bing was even a thought. So Bing did a few things first, but no one cares because it's always going to be a "me too" product (like all of microsoft's products except desktop windows). They should have been pushing to innovate with Windows Mobile *before* it was cool, but they were satisfied with the current state of PDAs for some reason. No one ever said they weren't innovative.

Linux Desktop will never catch on in mainstream and it's isn't Microsoft's fault, it's the short-coming of bunch of stubborn losers in denial.

Not sure of the relevance of that comment, but saying Windows phone will never catch on with the mainstream...and its definitely Microsofts fault, it's the short-coming of bunch of stubborn losers in denial.

I believe Linux runs on 75% of Smartphones:) where Windows Phone runs on 2%